TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Dean

United States v. Henry R. DEAN

United States v. Dean, 266 F. Supp. 159 (S.D.N.Y. 1966)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court, S.D. New York · Federal District Courts
Decided
February 23, 1966
Docket
No. 65 Cr. 960
Judges
Weinfeld
Citations
266 F. Supp. 1591966 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9564

Opinion of the Court — Weinfeld

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

MEMORANDUM WEINFELD, District Judge.

The motion for a bill of particulars is granted to the extent of requiring the government to set forth:

(1) the approximate date and the approximate time of the day when the defendant received the sum of $100, as alleged in count 1 of the indictment;

(2) the person or persons from whom defendant received the aforesaid sum;

(3) the place where, with a sufficient and adequate description thereof, the defendant received the aforesaid sum;

(4) whether the payment was made by cash or check, or both; if by both, specify how much in cash and how much by check.

Since the charge here is the receipt of unauthorized moneys for the performance of official duty, the contents of the income tax return, whether correct or incorrect, is immaterial. 1

The particulars ordered, together with the information contained in the indictment, are clearly sufficient to enable the defendant to prepare for trial and to afford the basis for any plea in bar of any subsequent prosecution for the same offense : 2 accordingly, the balance of the motion is denied.

The motion made under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is denied since the showing required under the Rule is not made, and in addition the government denies possession of any documents producible thereunder.

The alternative motion made under Rule 17(c) is likewise denied. Here again request is made for documents, the relevancy and materiality of which is extremely questionable upon the issues presented by the charge and, if at all relevant and subpoenaed for trial, it is clear, in view of their nature, that an inspection at that time will not unreasonably delay the trial. 3

. See United States v. Kenner, 36 F.R.D. 391, 394 (S.D.N.Y.1965); United States v. Simon, 30 F.R.D. 53, 55-56 (S.D.N.Y. 1962).

. Cf. United States v. Debrow, 346 U.S. 374, 376 , 74 S.Ct. 113 , 98 L.Ed. 92 (1953); Wong Tai v. United States, 273 U.S. 71 , 77, 80-81, 47 S.Ct. 300 , 71 L.Ed. 545 (1927); United States v. Miller, 246 F.2d 486, 488-489 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 905 , 78 S.Ct. 332 , 2 L.Ed.2d 261 (1957).

. Cf. United States v. Iozia, 13 F.R.D. 335 (S.D.N.Y.1952).

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1967: 11971: 11990: 119672026peak 1967 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Gatto746 F. Supp. 432 (D.N.J. 1990)
  2. United States v. Cogan266 F. Supp. 374 (S.D.N.Y. 1967)
  3. United States v. Manetti323 F. Supp. 683 (D. Del. 1971)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Gatto746 F. Supp. 432 (D.N.J. 1990)
  2. United States v. Manetti323 F. Supp. 683 (D. Del. 1971)
  3. United States v. Cogan266 F. Supp. 374 (S.D.N.Y. 1967)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 6

DepthCaseCited by
Tai v. United States, 273 U.S. 77 (1927) 530
United States v. Debrow, 346 U.S. 374 (1953) 410
United States v. Iozia, 13 F.R.D. 335 (S.D.N.Y. 1952) 111
United States v. Miller, 246 F.2d 486 (2d Cir. 1957) 33
United States v. Simon, 30 F.R.D. 53 (S.D.N.Y. 1962) 10
United States v. Kenner, 36 F.R.D. 391 (S.D.N.Y. 1965) 10

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list